When we write anything that has to do with guns, the criticism flows in even before the criticizer has read any of our work.

Talk about trigger happy!

All kinds of awful motives are wrongly attributed to us just because of the topic. So when we are inevitably accused of bias in our reporting and editing, I smile at the irony.

For example, these comments were posted online at MLive.com/grand-rapids prior to last Sunday, when the concealed weapon law series began:

• “I look forward to see what type of ‘reporting’ liberal ‘journalists’ do with this story.” -- azovoice.

• “With the manipulation by the media, one does have to wonder if all the facts are being included in these reports. It is a fact that both sides have omitted data in an effort to sway public opinion.” -- Chingasos.

• “I’m sure that the investigation and conclusions will be as unbiased as the rest of the reporting we read in Booth papers. Really. Just as unbiased.” -- bphammer.

Even comments that were posted after the content of the series began appearing online and in print barely acknowledged the actual content and veered quickly into taking sides:

• “This is clearly the GR Press going out after the Second Amendment.” -- FairVoice.

• “Looks like your basic, Journalism 101, anti-gun screed. There’s nothing particularly wrong with the law. No mayhem has erupted, so complain about a bunch of county prosecutors, probably overwhelmed with work and under funded, who failed to comply with a paperwork requirement.” -- dcnorte.

But, happily, many people who actually read the articles expressed appreciation for the in-depth nature of the series and the finding that reporting requirements are being ignored in violation of the law:

• “For me the issue is that if it’s mandated in a law, how can they not comply? Every year the state and federal government issues unfunded mandates to private businesses and industries and expects them to come up with the money to comply, what a sham.” -- Fruitport1.

• “In this day and age of computer records, there is no reason for counties to ignore the law. It is time for penalties to be added for not reporting, such as the prosecutor being removed from office.” -- porkysplace.

• “All the defensiveness here by gun-owners clouds the real issue the GR Press has raised: accountability under the CPL law has gone out the window. The county gun board system for administrating concealed carry permits is broken and needs to be fixed by consolidating the authority with the state police so that, principally, drunks and other n’er-do-wells do not buy another pistol after getting out of jail. If there is no reform of the current system, then the law allowing CPL should be rescinded.” --chukobuk.

• “Hmm, ‘anti-gun crap?’ Reading the article and comments it would be hard to find any one doing this. I suppose it could be that I don’t have the secret message decoder. The item worth noting is that the bill turns out 10 years later to be fairly benign in impact -- this has been obvious for some time and caused me to think more on gun rights (10 years ago I was a clear anti). That said, the measures in the law about reporting do deserve more pursuit if we are to have some clearer understanding of the law’s real impact. For the pro-gun side, I would think this especially important, since it will be data that lifts their case from the anecdotal to the demonstrated.” -- wmrharris.

Our approach to this topic was to give readers an objective look at an important law at its 10-year anniversary. We did that, despite knowing we’d get undeserved guff from some for daring to reveal flaws.

That’s apparently the price we must pay to keep our readers the best informed people in West Michigan.